Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:50AM
from the he-should-get-a-reward-too dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Editorial Board of the New York Times has weighed in on the criminal charges facing Edward Snowden and writes that 'Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight..' 'He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.' The president said in August that Snowden should come home to face charges in court and suggested that if Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses, acting, in other words, as a whistle-blower. In fact, notes the editorial board, the executive order regarding whistleblowers did not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Snowden. More important, Snowden told The Washington Post that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the NSA, and that they took no action. 'Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not. ... When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government,' concludes the editorial. 'President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home.'"

They are already worse than China in terms of some of the human rights. After all, they destroyed one such right, right to privacy already. And they are doing it while accusing China of possibly doing it.

So that particular bridge has been burned down long, long ago.

And if you think that CIA doesn't use the "lest something happens to your family" just as much as other intelligence agencies, I have land on the moon to sell you.

Always good to keep in mind that the Washington Post was headquarters of Project Mockingbird, and that the NYT had the largest membership in Project Mockingbird of any news organization (including the television networks). They're certainly not going to say something like this out of the goodness of their non-existent corporate heart. If Snowden comes back to the US he'll be targeted by some 'lone nut' fall guy, or end up in a small plane over a wooded area. I'd be surprised if he's not protected by Spet

The CIA these days prefers a trumped-up sexual assault charge over a bullet. Less messy and just as effective. Just ask a former IMF chief who dared to question the supremacy of the U.S. dollar [guardian.co.uk].

Other than agreeing to run Pentagon propaganda pieces as authentic "news" in return for exclusive access? Gleefully participating in illegal propaganda efforts against the US public throughout the '70s? Publishing known false disinformation repeatedly during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, in order to guarantee the ability to 'in-bed' their stenographers with the invasion forces? Deliberately assisting in covering up CIA drug running repeatedly throughout the '80s? Participating in the 2000 Florida vot

It's actually an interesting point you bring up. With the rendition practices where people are either tortured directly by the CIA overseas or are being handed over to 'friendly' torturers, legally approved water-boarding torture in the US, and who knows what else goes on, the CIA runs the direct risk of what the secret policy in the soviet era has undergone. When the job requirements are such that only thugs like it, only thugs will apply.

I'm pretty sure that this last decade, the CIA has gone through a transformation where people capable of doing actual intelligence work have left the bureau, and mostly people that know how to 'extract' info from others remain. Unfortunately, such info is typically useless, making the CIA just another device for oppression of brown people worshiping the wrong god, as intelligence they will not gather anymore.

The moment the US government starts harming families is the moment I declare war and cap some asses.

“The females that we had, were the spouses or sister or cousin of high value detainees, that were being used as - ‘well O.K., we have your sister, we have your wife, you know you need to turn yourself in’. The same thing with the little children. I mean we had like nine year olds in there. I’m like why do I have a nine year old in a prison – that’s crazy - but yeah that’s what was there.”

and the Medal of Honor, just for starters. Snowden has done more for this country than our "Nobel Peace Prize" winning President!

You don't have to use quote. It tells us more about the prize than about your president. He didn't ask for it I guess. As I see it, Bush and Cheney are much more to blame, but I guess any president has to account for the failures of his predecessor.

The Medal of Honor can only be awarded for actions while engaged with the enemy. No, not eligible. Dumping hundreds of megabytes of files he found into the public doesn't even qualify for whistleblower protections by any rational definition.

They shouldn't have broken the law. Yes the courts have ruled it all legal but everyone knows that to be a farce.

They shouldn't have persecuted Snowden. What has that accomplished?

They shouldn't have doubled down on their right to spy because that has caused an international incident.

And now their corporate partners are all turning on them one by one.

Give up, NSA. Have the national discussion you should have had a generation ago. We'll talk about it.

If we decide as a nation to go down that path... so be it. But we won't. Which means you'll have to operate within more limited rules and capabilities. And as much as that might vex you or put the public at greater risk such is the price of living in a free country.

What you have done is wrong. What snowden did violated the law but served the interests of the American people. We owe it to him to shield him and any like him.

If we don't stand up for men like Snowden then what chance do any of us have when the feds come for YOU.

Understand, I make a distinction between treason and whistle blowing. This is whistle blowing.

If the police department starts raping women in the jail cells and then covering it up... do you want to deter people that try to inform the public of it?

Yes. The relationship is valid. The NSA has been wantonly breaking the law on a vast scale. And what is more the judicial branch is enabling it. Does the rape become more valid if the judge is okay with it? No. Its actually worse and worthy of increasingly outrage until the issue is resolved.

As to leaks, leaks are almost never punished. The white house, congress, the pentagon, the CIA all leak things all the time that they're not supposed to leak. There was a big flap lately about the CIA leaking things about seal team 6. The leak was ultimately traced to the white house. Anyone go to jail for that? Nope. So what you're doing is not punishing leakers. Leakers don't get punished. What you're doing is punishing a whistle blower. The guy that calls RAPE. You want that silenced.

Sound like a good idea? I don't see how it could be anything but an encouragement for FURTHER corruption.

As to the interest of the NSA versus the people. I think you're confused here... the NSA works for us. Where our interests conflict we take precedence without exception. If the NSA is under any illusions on that issue then why are we paying them with our tax dollars and why are we giving them special extra legal authorities? If they want to go rogue that's fine. They can see how far they get with no money and no extra legal rights. They'd be a non-entity in a week.

So no. They have no conflicting interests that I need to respect. If anything, the public has an interest in treating what interests they have outside of their duty with utter contempt.

Isn't that the whole point of having a democracy that is free and transparent? Doing illegal acts on a large scale and lying about it *needs* to be reported, especially when the bad actor is your own government. And if the government will not do anything about it internally, then it needs to be taken to the public.Otherwise governments have no disincentive to act against the individuals that the government is supposed to 'protecting'.

Snowden did not reveal any operatives' names nor did he leak the data to t

We have a president who, after promising the most open administration ever, has done a complete 180 and tried to limit press coverage, access to records and administration officials, and so on. He has offered pardons to fewer people than any other president. That doesn't sound like a welcoming environment to come home to, when you get right down to it. That said, I've always had mixed feelings about Snowden. To be honest, China and Russia probably know much about what is going on, because they do the same things themselves. In addition, it's not unlike the Wikileaks dump...people in Iraq and Afghanistan know what's going on there...it's the American people who are kept in the dark. On the other hand, we want the "American standard of living," which is no different from the "British Way" back in the 1800s, and so on. We're not a bucolic merchant republic any more. America is a global empire, the Rome of our day, and maintaining that position requires an awful lot of "off the books" action. People scream for more security, lower gas prices, salute the flag all over the place, and don't want to deal with paying taxes to maintain military hegemony, the rabid pursuit of dissent, or the corruption which invariably accompanies a concentration of power.

Obama was secretive right from the start in his campaign. He closed down all documentation from his supposed studies in university. (Which proves that he has pretty powerful forces behind him - not every candidate can get such kind of secrecy.) What does the public know about Obama? Not much. All his supposed friends he describes in his book turned out to be fictitious, nobody has ever seen him in the universities he supposedly went, nobody knows why he used two

Google "Obama Harvard" there are tons of images including from television appearances. There is an interview in 1991 with Frontline which is one of the most prestigious news / documentary programs in the United States.

> All his supposed friends he describes in his book turned out to be fictitious

Again, really?

> nobody has ever seen him in the universities he supposedly went

sigh..

And people wonder why our country is such a mess. Don't you see you arepart of the problem. You are part of the reason that a government can getaway with what they do. You parrot obvious lies encouraging more misinformation.Fight misinformation, don't help it spread.

Snowden get's a pardon only after Manning, as far as I'm concerned, not until.

Even if manning got a pardon for his actual whistleblowing, you're still left with hundreds of thousands of classified documents he indiscriminately released, for which there can be no reasonable whistleblowing defense.

While such a position is surprisingly non-toadying for the NYT, fuck 'clemency'. 'Clemency' is the merciful withholding of some portion of a deserved punishment. Since Snowden deserves a hero's welcome, rather than any punishment, 'clemency' is an insult.

If there's anyone who is in a position to be begging for 'clemency' it's the Oh-So-Very-Serious-and-Responsible spooks currently whining about how much damage Snowden has allegedly done to their hitherto impressive record of completely and utterly unverifiable or demonstrable terrorist hunting.

'Pardon' would be better. I'd prefer to see 'ticker-tape parade to the Capitol, down a street lined with intelligence creeps hanging from the lampposts'; but I'm told that my pony is being held up by customs...

Of course, if the tables were turned, e.g. somebody had published the same sort of information about any other's country intelligence agencies, the U.S. most likely would be the first to thank them for blowing the whistle on unlawful acts... two standards... 'nough said.

For all those morons calling Snowden a traitor: consider this scenario.

Reviewing circumstances of that Petraeus scandal in the light of Snowden's revelations, it's pretty clear that NSA knew about CIA director affair, and more importantly kept the fact to itself (if, of course it wasn't a parallel construction [wikipedia.org] by FBI, which is easy for them to check)

Now what we have? We have that NSA had dirt on a top CIA official, a popular political figure, with very probable presidential candidacy on the horizon. And what it did with that info? It kept it's chips to itself to cash-in at the most opportune moment! And the whole infrastructure at the NSA is built in such a way (intentionally!) that unless NSA wants to, nobody can say with absolute certainty what they knew and when they knew that.

This could be called conspiracy if was said two years ago. But now it it very palpable at least.

Conspiracies do exist. Don't shy from the word just because you were trained to by the press. It's like Watergate was a conspiracy. A scientist should attribute degrees of certainty based on evidence, and never be 100% certain about anything.

Do they really think that will happen? He blew the cover on the country's illegal spy program, most people in the government wanted him dead. You hear that, dead! They wanted him back in the country so they could kill him for treason. I'm really surprised they didn't order a drone strike on him and claim nothing happened. They'll never grant him clemency. They revoked his citizenship and the only way the government will let him back in is in a box. Sure, the program breaks the law. The government has alread

I haven't been following it too closely but my understanding was that everything that Snowden was complaining about were data collection activities that the courts had allowed and just that Snowden (and probably the majority of the public) thought was excessive. If I'm right with that than I'm not sure if you can claim whistle blower status if there is no crime being done. The law might need to be changed or interpreted differently but that doesn't undo the fact he didn't have the right to disclose legal actions.

Sometimes doing what is right isn't what is legal and sometimes doing what is right costs you dearly (example parent fighting off an attacker so their kids can get away and end up dying/convicted of manslaughter because of it). Actions have consequences some positive some negative. You weight the options and make the choice then live with both.

I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but if you have to ask "did they break the law?" then you are absolutely right that you haven't been paying attention.

The courts and congress, prior to Snowden's leaks, did allow it. You are correct there. But what they allowed was not the same as what the NSA was actually up to. They flat-out lied to get authorization for some things, then went off and did others so when/if they got caught, they could say, "But we were told we could do that!" It is a well-documented fact at this point that the NSA lied to both the courts and congress. That, in itself, is not legal.

Then, we have the fact that they are definitely violating the 4th amendment. They are not "just" collecting "metadata." They have the content of every phone call or email you make, your browsing history, etc. and they intend hold it for at least 15 years. As American citizens have the right to not be unreasonably searched without warrant, they have violated the constitution in billions of instances over the last decade.

First amendment rights have also been under attack. Some members of the media have stated that they've been under pressure (not clear if it's from their employers or otherwise) to not run any anti-NSA stories. Some businesses, such as Lavabit and Silent Circle, have had to shutdown because of ridiculous legal pressure to completely legal businesses simply because they did not want to provide all of their information in bulk and instead said they would comply with the law and turn over any information related to suspects. In the case of Lavabit, the FBI demanded they turn over their SSL public & private keys; this is not needed to unencrypt stored information on users, but instead to create a MITM attack on their network. I got a bit off-topic here, but the point is simply that people are forced to behave differently, including limiting their speech, out of fear of government backlash. It is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Let's be clear; the NSA has not broken the letter of the law, simply because there are judges, and a government backing those judges, that deems what the NSA is doing is appropriate and legal.

However; the NSA has certainly broken the spirit of the law, and certainly, those Americans that created the bill of rights and particularly the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, would be appalled at the government over-reach and how a government of the people and for the people has been corrupted into something else, something that smacks of evil.

So, whether you think Snowden is a hero or a traitor seems to hinge on whether you agree with the spirit or the letter of the law.

And the New York Times is foolish to appeal to the government to consider the spirit of the law, because it's the lawyers and accountants who have corrupted that law by many decades of "loopholing" the letter of the law, finding every legal out they can to avoid paying taxes or winning a case -- to the point where the spirit of the law is no longer a consideration, which is also why every piece of legislation is now thousands of pages long, and not four pages.

It's unfortunate that we no longer have a justice system in this country, which would observe the spirit of the law, we have a LEGAL system in this country, which only observes the letter. And by the letter of the law, Snowden is guilty of his crimes, which is why if you're looking for justice, you have to leave this country.

Who the hell's on the writing staff for reality these days?!!These damn character names would embarrass Ian Fleming.

First we've got a guy building ICBMs right under the government's nose with the ridiculous name "Elon Musk".Now we have a lily-white uber-hacker with the eponymous name "Edward Snowden".I'm sure "Julian Assange" must be a ludicrous double entendre in some language, but I haven't tracked it down yet.

It would have been better if the NYTImes had negotiated a joint statement with FoxNews and other news outlets that they ALL consider Snowden a whistleblower. By coming first (yay! we're first! ) they may have enhanced their reputation with a few liberals as defenders of civil liberties but they also invoked the "NYTimes is wrong about everything ! " reflex in a lot of conservatives. In fact, from what I've seen conservatives are just as outraged about the NSA spying scandal as are liberals.

Why??? Snowden did far more harm than good. Nothing has been done about anything he revealed, courts have been ruling it's legal.

So you are totally skipping over the whole "lying to congress" thing as if its inconsequential?

Snowden may have pulled the curtain away to reveal what was suspected with regards to who spies on who, but in doing so he also showed that the intelligence services were out of control and arrogant in their stance.

Why??? Snowden did far more harm than good. Nothing has been done about anything he revealed, courts have been ruling it's legal.

So you are totally skipping over the whole "lying to congress" thing as if its inconsequential?

If the NSA pays folks to play video games, they will most certainly also pay folks to troll Slashdot. The comment that you responded to above looks, smells, walks and talks like a government flak.

But the real problem is that most folks in the US are more concerned about important things like the future of "Duck Dynasty" and if Kim Kardashian's ass will fit into her wedding dress to notice that a government agency is wildly spinning out of control . . .

Given the broad definitions the gov tends to use, I'd say their idea of metadata probably contains a great deal of individually identifiable markers that others would consider to be more than just "metadata".

Like "Extra-ordinary rendition"/"Kidnapping" and "Pretexting"/"Wire-fraud", "metadata" is a PR euphemism at best and an outright lie at worst. Anyone who thinks the NSA has truly restricted themselves to metadata is either being disingenuous or is a fool.

Snowden did far more harm than good to the US government and the businesses wielding the US government like a club. For the rest of the world, Snowden gave us something we didn't have before: knowledge. We got information on who was spying on us and how. Who could be trusted and why. Which protocols were known to be compromised. NIST nearly lost all their credibility as a cryptography standards body. RSA lost the remainder of its credibility. Google and other companies discovered the government was stealing their data. The NSA was revealed as the most lawless organization on the planet, briefly eclipsing the CIA in illegal notoriety.

And we're supposed to just sweep this all under the rug because "everyone's doing it" and "oh look you pissed our allies off, now look what you've done?" What they're doing is wrong and illegal -- and the only reason they've been getting away with it is because they had no one that could hold them accountable. (Whether the public can actually hold them accountable in a representative democracy is currently up for open debate.)

Certainly Snowden's actions made it a little bit more difficult for the US government to undertake certain actions. As those actions themselves are harmful and illegal, cry me a river. Snowden may not have helped the US government per se, but he helped the citizens of the US, and people around the world as well.

We are free to do what we please, but the legal system SHOULD deal out punishment for indiscretions (especially those that go against the ultimate law of the land, for the US this is the Constitution). As you pointed out, no one has been punished, this is THE core fault in the system given the public's knowledge of things.

Evidence of Constitutional breaches are important, evidence is far more powerful than what "everyone already knew" ("suspected" would have been a better word). Otherwise "knowing" is simply the realm of those with tin foil hats (who I have to assume have upgraded to full steel medieval helmets).

Some of us still care about the Constitution, and would like to see it upheld.

Burn a flag, everyone freaks out. Burn the Constitution, no one notices. This is especially clear given the critical information Snowden has released.

Snowden absolutely should be pardoned for leaking information about the NSA's domestic spying activities, and/or covered under whistleblower policies. This was an act of a patriot.

But I don't think he'd get a pass for all the subsequent leaks which were only done to undermine the NSA's foreign spying (that's what they're for!). It's not benefiting US citizens or it's gov't. Now it seems like he's just trying to do as much damage to the US as he can.

Blowback will include a return to cash transactions, more barter, and in-person communications (maybe personal letters, I have a feeling they are monitored as well). Basically a revolution against technology. The Matrix is a great model, some have woken up (escaped the system, maybe never in the system), most are still asleep and monitored, and the system itself can fully track anyone that hasn't woken up.

The US government is the machines from the Matrix (is or are, complicated question?).

I just scared myself with the realization. When Agent Smith spoke of humanity being a disease it never dawned on me that the machines were also a disease. And one that, while suckily, were resolved by the end of the extra movies. If only the complete spying by a "free" country could be resolved so easily, via a few hours of entertainment.......

Spying on ally countries as well as domestic US traffic should be frowed on and with good reason.

Agreed.

The reason that spying on ally countries, especially mass spying of ordinary citizens of allies, should be frowned upon is because it makes it far too easy to arrange a reciprocal spying agreements where no agency breaks it's own countries laws but still gets all the juicy intel about it's own citizens.

Really? So what have YOU done to further the hope for greater freedom in the United States?

IMO, he's exactly the type of hero our country needs many more of.... People willing to take action when they see government wrong-doing, rather than sit back, collecting a paycheck at the taxpayer's expense, and perpetuating the problem. All the while, convincing themselves they're "just doing their job".

If nothing gets done based on what he revealed, that just speaks to how deep we're all stuck in the pit of Fascism, inside our nation that pays lip service to completely different concepts. The courts should NOT be ruling this stuff is legal, and people should be outraged when they do! Unfortunately, we seem to live in a country where the majority still take an attitude of, "I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me personally right now. I'll happily piss away a basic right or freedom if it punishes people for doing something I'm not personally a fan of."

As far as your claim that all Snowden did was confirm what everyone already knew? I strongly disagree with that! I don't think the vast majority of people knew, for example, that the NSA might redirect your mail orders for brand new computer systems, planting spyware on them before they reached your address. I don't think the vast majority of people knew for sure that the NSA collected as much information about US citizens as we now know it does. (It's one thing to joke in passing about how the government "already knows you sent that email" or "heard what you said in that phone call". But that just speaks to a very vague, general sense that a well funded government agency with spying capabilities could theoretically do such a thing. Having an inside contractor verify they actually do it, AND detailing the extent of it is a whole different level.)

The fact Snowden found it safer to run to a nation known for a lack of personal liberty and huge privacy issues speaks volumes about how far the USA has slipped. If our country was a more sane and just place to live, he would never have felt the need to flee at all! Fact is, he couldn't trust any of the B.S. spouted off by govt. officials, promising to work with him if he just turned himself in. (Heck, a former head of the NSA was recently quoted as essentially saying he'd like to see Snowden's head on a platter.) These people still view him a a traitor who deserves execution, since he didn't go along with the status quo of trampling all over the rights of U.S. citizens in order to build a more powerful organization for themselves.

The president of the United States during his campaign for president campaigned on objections to Bush's mass data collection. Obama expanded that data collection. When NSA officials were asked about it they lied to congress. I didn't know they were lying. This is a democracy.

If we are going to have mass data collection we have a broad public debate on the topic, congress issues a specific mandate, mechanism are put in place by congress for oversight and the executive branch issues regulations to implemen

He's not even in exile, but we thanks for letting us know you're an idiot.

You have no idea just how much money he has saved us from expanding even further on completely fucking useless NSA programs with nothing to show for them. In a sense he has added significant economic value/efficiency to the US.

You know, I actually respect cold fjord. He posts thought-out arguments, is sharp enough to catch when someone is bullshitting, and doesn't often (at least that I've seen) start randomly insulting people. Even though I disagree with him, he's the kind of person that I like to see on/. and other forums. You need differing opinions if you ever want to have an intelligent conversation. GP is an example of the only differing opinions we'd get if people like fjord left ("omg fuck the hivemind! lawlawl snow

I don't. He constantly tries to blur the lines between illegal and immoral. If you argue morality, he'll argue back about the law. He of course does not respond well when pointed out perfectly good examples of why morality and legality are not the same.

I don't mind well worded contrary opinions (I like roman_mir, for example even if I disagreewith most of his conclusioins), but not Cold Fjord since I think he is intellectually dishonest.

Cold fjord starts from a basic assumption: The government is not inherently evil. This is the basic tenet that garners so much hatred from the hivemind. Many Slashdotters have decided, with or without reason, that the government is bad unless it is handing out welfare*, especially if the government tries to gather information of any kind.

From that perspective, the next progression is whether the government's courts are supposed to decide what is right or wrong. Many Slashdotters say "yes", but the US justic

Uh, yes he did. Secession was never recognized by the US government, nor was it recognized by any other government. Also, when Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, that de facto ended the war and brought the Confederate states back under the control of the US government. Not to mention the fact that Booth, with that single shot, doomed the South to much harsher terms during Reconstruction: Lincoln wanted to reconcile with the South, while those around him wanted to punish the South. With Lincoln dead, the South got punished.

Now that I think about it, I see a lot of Lee in what Snowden did. Both were torn between his duty to his job and his government and his duty to his people. Both knew that by taking the choice they made they would be vilified, hated, and hunted, but both took the path they believe to be right. Both permanently lost their homes. History has restored Lee's honor and reputation. Hopefully it does so for Snowden as well.

spooks. herding behavior. probably bots that look for 'snowden' then post crazyass trator responses. there's way too many of them and they show up way too quickly on every snowden story (notice most of such negative posts actually reference the story they're commenting on!). trying to change public perception by being outliers and pushing discussion into "he's a trator" territory (after all, if entire message boards scream he's a trator, folks might think twice before posting anything truthful).

If Snowden Returned to US For Trial, All Whistleblower Evidence Would Likely Be Inadmissible

If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant -- and are therefore inadmissible in court.

Maybe it has something to do with those two nations being part of a small group that isn't beholden, in one way or another, to the U.S., and therefore would be significantly less likely to put a bag over his head and send him back to the states?

How about France forcing passenger jets in their airspace to land with fighters, because the NSA thought Snowden was on board? Right, surely he would have been safe in the EU or one of the other allies. And surely this was all legal. Right.

Government for the people by the peopleThe hell it isn't about the court of public opinion in this case. I don't know of too many people in this country that are happy with or want the government doing what its doing to their own citizens... The same citizens the government should be working for not against....

You know, I almost would have agreed with this view; but all in all I have to disagree. The entire world should be having this debate, not just the U.S. Countries that are raging about it will have that much more pressure to practice what they preach. Hence why Putin recently sypathized with the NSA's position. He doesn't want to be accused of double standards when the heat is on his own government later There is indeed justification for spying on Russia and China; since they are spying on us after all, but the foreign spying is out of control as well. Why are we tapping Angela Merkel's phone, for instance? What is the purpose in that? Why can't our government get over the fact that the cold war ended over 20 years ago? Not only that, but wouldn't the NSA be more effective at it's job if it focused on targets that are actually justified, instead of spying on everyone and everything just because they can?

... I want us spying on Russia and China - and I don't want them knowing how we do it. This information should have been kept to himself.

Personally, I haven't heard of or seen any Snowden revelations about how the NSA spied on countries like Russia or China in particular; only about how they spied on everyone, our NATO allies and the American people included. Also, if our government were functioning properly, Snowden would not have had to ask anyone for asylum. However, I'm sure the NSA is using your exact same argument to justify everything they did, including congressional perjury, and to be allowed to continue on as before. That should

Government employees swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I think you've confused who broke the higher law and in how many instances and who deserves a firing squad.

I still subscribe because the coverage and writing is so much better than the 5th grade level journalism in the local paper, but I agree that the news journalism of the NY Times has become pretty ideological in recent years.

The fawning over Obama has abated a little, but there is still too much cheerleading for Democratic policy generally and over specific issues like gun control there is not even a glimmer of objectivity, it's outright page 1-A advocacy reporting.

Yes, people here need to stop trotting out the line that he could have taken "appropriate channels". There ARE no appropriate channels in practice. See Thomas Drake. Ellsberg himself has said he would have been jailed for life in today's climate and agrees Snowden did the right/only feasible thing in leaving.

Snowden's only somewhat free today because he rightly did not believe justice exists any more in his home nation.